ATC, RFF, WTF?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

So, for a while now we’ve had constant ATIS updates every time one of the fireys goes for a leak and the RFF cat changes. Or we’ll be advised on short final that RFF is now Cat zero due to them attending an emergency somewhere on the airfield. What are we supposed to do with this information - go around and divert? Try even harder not to crash?

Then yesterday we had ATC asking each aircraft inbound to YSSY, one after the other, if they had the NOTAM advising RFF would be Cat 9. (You could just picture the bafflement on the flight deck of the United 787…). Again, of what practical use was this? If you work on the principle that unnecessary transmissions cluttering up the airwaves aren’t a good thing, then surely this isn’t a great idea. Plus, we don’t seem to get this if there’s a NOTAM advising that the threshold’s displaced 1000m or the HIALS are u/s,

I’m not questioning the professionalism of ATC here, as I’m sure they’re just doing what’s required of them. Just trying to understand where this is coming from, as it seems to be a fairly new thing and not particularly helpful to anyone. Perhaps a rethink might be in order.

[Lead Balloon]

It's so you'll try extra hard not to collide with the 97' AMSL tree that penetrates the VSS 2kms away from the ARP.

[KRviator]

Perhaps one of the more crusty skippers needs to reply with your question: "Yeah, thanks Center, but what do you actually expect me to do with that info?"

Begs the question, if you are out of options for suitable diversions and the RFF cat is below legislated requirements, do you declare MAYDAY [RFF] or hold hoping it comes back up until you declare MAYDAY Fuel? Otherwise you're breaking "the roolz" and you can't break the rules unless an emergency exists, right?

[Icarus2001]

Given that in Australia we have 100+ seat jets operating RPT into uncontrolled airports, with ZERO fire fighting or emergency response available, what is the purpose of the broadcast?

Perhaps it was picked up at an ICAO audit.

*RPT as in transport category operations, part 121

[neville_nobody]

It means that some bureaucrat safely camped behind his desk in Canberra can't be blamed if a 1/1 000 000 event occurs because ATC told you that RFF was degraded. That is why there are 1000's of irrelevant NOTAMs. That is why we have all these "rules" under the guise of safety. It's nothing about safety it's about protecting the bureaucracy and blaming pilots.

[CaptainMidnight]

What are we supposed to do with this information -

Stating the obvious: ask your company, what if anything you are required to do ......

[Stationair8]

Conduct a missed approach, enter a holding pattern and each crew member put on an approved safety vest, prior to joining a 20 mile final.

[illusion]

Conduct a missed approach, enter a holding pattern and each crew member put on an approved safety vest, prior to joining a 20 mile final.

With ASIC clearly displayed on the outer garment...

[dr dre]

This is a systemic problem that pervades the distribution of essential flight info. This article nails it:

The Problem Of Bulls**t Notams (https://ops.group/blog/the-problem-of-bull****-notams/)

[Lead Balloon]

Stating the obvious: ask your company, what if anything you are required to do ......
Is it really possible that different operators of transport category aircraft could have different Ops Manual answers as to the required response to the same RFF NOTAM for the same destination, all of which differing responses comply with regulatory requirements? Do some operators carry their own on-board RFFS at the required category as mitigation?

[maggot]

Conduct a missed approach, enter a holding pattern and each crew member put on an approved safety vest, prior to joining a 20 mile final.

Only a 20nm final? Been to BNE lately?

Can't be too safe
:zzz:

[compressor stall]

Off the top of my head the only RFFS in the operational regs is regarding EDTO alternates when outside the Australian FIR they must be cat 4. Inside Aus there is no requirement. This was going to change in December 21 with the 121 introduction but has been bumped to Dec 23 when domestic EDTO alternates need to be Cat 4 139 compliant.

[alphacentauri]

First reg reference
MOS 139H 3.1.3.2 If advertised in ERSA, NOTAM action must be taken for any reduction below specified ARFFS category.....

Second reg referenceMOS 139H 25.1.3.2 NOTAM action is not necessary for temporary reductions in ARFFS provisions, provided that the type of aircraft movement planned for the aerodrome during the temporary reduction does not exceed the reduced category. In these circumstances ARFFS is to advise ATC of the details of the reduction by direct recorded line.Result: Any reduction in category, when scheduled aircraft movement require a higher category, must be promulgated somehow. I have asked what the expected outcome is, and what actions are expected of the crew for this information (as others have in this thread). All I got was "we must comply with the reg".

Lead Balloon - this is the same situation for the VSS notams. Penetrations of the VSS shall be promulgated

CASA are telling their staff they can exercise discretion......it appears their staff don't want to
Alpha

[Lead Balloon]

And thus it’s promulgated. But what does the crew do differently, in the real world, as a consequence of what’s promulgated?

[alphacentauri]

Absolutely nothing.

I would point out that there are some (Airservices and CASA) that genuinely believe that an operational decision is made based on the changed ARFF information. Is there decisions made at the dispatch stage based on an ARFF change?

Same for the VSS penetrations....do performance engineers need to know this information? How else do they get it? :confused:

Alpha

[43Inches]

Sounds more like a planning requirement, and in-flight up to the operators what to do. It would be more so an issue of whether you push back for departure without said RFF capability than whether you continue an approach. Maybe a crew could then assess they may not have full RFF accessibility may mean you evacuate earlier in certain circumstances rather than rely on fire services being able to extinguish the fire. After all if you land away from intended destination whilst on fire you take what external help you can, but you would most likely get everyone off ASAP rather than wait for help to arrive.

What if two A380s collide on taxi and catch fire, then that obviously exceeds the RFF capability. (I sincerely hope I just didn't make one of those airport risk assessors head explode with worry now)

[kingRB]

I put this in the same category as the now seemingly never ending barrage of UA ops / RPAS notams at major airports. The ones that are commercially licenced and having to post these notams are not the ones we are worried about.

[Alpha Whiskey Bravo]

So the ARFF are in dispute with their employer over not providing enough resources for them to do their jobs, so apart from a strike in December, what better way to document how many times safety is reduced by the number of NOTAMS lowering the Cat level. The average pilot will not know or care how many Fire Fighters are on the shift, but if you push this into their faces, then it all becomes a slightly larger issue for the Employer to defend. If you accept a reduction in your operational workforce due to COVID, you had better have a way to get it back up to speed BEFORE the need arises for the very same people to be trained and operational. Don't ignore it because you are concentrating on how much money you saved!

[Hamley]

I put this in the same category as the now seemingly never ending barrage of UA ops / RPAS notams.

If I ever find myself at 262 ft agl 3.6 NM from the ARP I’m not going to be thinking about UA ops.

Likewise, if I have a problem and need to land very soon at the closest major airport, the availability of RFF services isn’t going to stop me.

[parishiltons]

Sounds more like a planning requirement, and in-flight up to the operators what to do. It would be more so an issue of whether you push back for departure without said RFF capability than whether you continue an approach. Maybe a crew could then assess they may not have full RFF accessibility may mean you evacuate earlier in certain circumstances rather than rely on fire services being able to extinguish the fire. After all if you land away from intended destination whilst on fire you take what external help you can, but you would most likely get everyone off ASAP rather than wait for help to arrive.

What if two A380s collide on taxi and catch fire, then that obviously exceeds the RFF capability. (I sincerely hope I just didn't make one of those airport risk assessors head explode with worry now)
Or when an Airbus takes out a fire truck, thus instantly reducing the RFF category available to deal with itself!

[red_dirt]

Or when an Airbus takes out a fire truck, thus instantly reducing the RFF category available to deal with itself!

wow…… just wow

[Icarus2001]

Well they operate out of airports that don’t normally have them, so there is a precedent.

[neville_nobody]

What do the various majors procedures say about landing or departing at various AD that have a degraded or zero RFF where there normally should be one? And their insurers?

I am wondering if QF will really operate with zero RFF out of SY)ML etc, or whether it is just media talk?


Your question will be answered soon when there is a RFF strike. I’ll bet that no one is going to stop and the RFF chaps are going to discover they are just a ‘nice to have’ rather than essential to aviation. In reality the chance of having a fire between 9-12 on a strike day is very low. Until of course we throw a bit of Murphy’s Law in there…..

[goodonyamate]

Good on them. Time to stand up. Pilots and passengers won’t be considering them just a ‘nice to have’ the day something happens.

you’ve got my support all the way.

[neville_nobody]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/airport-firefighters-plan-nationwide-strike-potentially-causing-major-flight-disruptions-20221129-p5c25r.html

Australia’s major airlines are set to continue flying when airport firefighters walk off the job for four hours next Friday morning as part of strike action their union claimed would significantly disrupt travel schedules.

United Firefighters Union (UFU) aviation branch secretary Wes Garrett said the strike from 6am to 10am on December 9 was a last resort as the union pushed for better pay and more staff to address a shortage it claims is compromising safety.

“We understand that this will be extremely disruptive for Australia’s air travellers and aviation firefighters sincerely apologise for the inconvenience,” Garrett said.

“But for over a year now, the safety of air travellers has been consistently put at risk each time they board an aircraft because we don’t have enough aviation firefighters to protect them if their plane crashes or catches fire, and that’s not acceptable.”

Firefighters will strike at all 27 airports across Australia where they are stationed, including all capital city gateways.

But Australia’s three major domestic airlines appear set to continue flying during the strike.

A Virgin Australia spokesman said it would work with the government’s aviation manager, Airservices Australia, and other agencies to ensure it could operate safely and with minimal disruption during the planned strike action.

Qantas declined to comment, but the airline and its budget arm Jetstar have not rescheduled any services during the four-hour strike and are still selling tickets on those flights.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) mandates that Airservices provides a set level of emergency services at major airports, including crew response times and having a certain number trucks available to respond to runway incidentsWhen asked on Tuesday, CASA could not say whether airlines could safely or legally operate during the strike.“We are currently working with all relevant parties to understand the impacts of this announcement,” a CASA spokesman said.Airport firefighters have been locked in wage negotiations with Airservices Australia for the past 12 months, and this month obtained Fair Work Commission approval to take strike action until January 1 (https://www.smh.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p5byt5).About 100 firefighters have left the industry through a voluntary retirement scheme since October 2021, which Garrett said has resulted in more than 600 flights every month operating with insufficient fire fighting protection.

A recent internal Airservices report released by the union shows “category reductions” – when a flight lands without the required emergency service provisions – have “increased significantly” since the redundancy round began.

Until late 2021, about one in every 1000 flights operated without the appropriate level of emergency crews on hand. By July this year, that increased to 130 in every 1000 flights, the report says.

But Airservices denied there was an airport firefighter shortage and said the union’s claims about safety were misleading and “designed to justify unnecessary industrial action to support an excessive wage claim”.

“The [United Firefighters Union] should abandon its strike threat and return to the bargaining table,” an Airservices spokesperson said.

“If they are so concerned about safety ... why are they increasing the safety risk by taking strike action and withdrawing (Aviation Rescue and Firefighters) altogether at Christmas time?”

The UFU is pushing for a wage increases of 15 per cent over the next four years, which follows a 1 per cent increase in 2020 and 0 per cent last year.

Australian Airports Association chief executive James Goodwin said it was “disappointing that industrial action could see disruption to travellers at a time when the sector is rebuilding confidence”.

Although Airservices is allowed to vary aircraft category in accordance with approved procedures that manage temporary changes to category, its recent internal audit found increasing instances of non-compliance with CASA’s reporting framework and “discrepancies between regulations and Airservices processes”.

[Icarus2001]

Good on them. Time to stand up. Pilots and passengers won’t be considering them just a ‘nice to have’ the day something happens.

What about when something happens to a 100 seat jet operating at an airport without fire fighting? Are you okay with that?

If it is ops normal on strike morning two things become apparent… UFU are screwed and we really do not need ATC to broadcast the RFF status changes.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/961x692/5228c64f_cfe5_45f8_8e8b_fdbea5fac31e_5df6eb846c8d41da2fd7f6f 1de47fd019d425dbc.jpeg

[tossbag]

I’ll bet that no one is going to stop and the RFF chaps are going to discover they are just a ‘nice to have’ rather than essential to aviation.

Well, when you look at it, Australia IS an aviation backwater, just like the rest of the **** that Africa does better than Australia, like internet etc.

Going without ARFF is OK right? Until you need them of course, then there'll be hell to pay. Then there's the heart attacks they've attended over the years, and the money they raise for charities, apart from that they do **** all right?

[goodonyamate]

What about when something happens to a 100 seat jet operating at an airport without fire fighting? Are you okay with that?

If it is ops normal on strike morning two things become apparent… UFU are screwed and we really do not need ATC to broadcast the RFF status changes.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/961x692/5228c64f_cfe5_45f8_8e8b_fdbea5fac31e_5df6eb846c8d41da2fd7f6f 1de47fd019d425dbc.jpeg


no, I’m not ok with that. I’m not ok with anything happening to anyone. Hence why I said I support them, bloody well pay them what their worth and give them the staff they need.

fark me, the moment someone talks about pilot pay you’re all about it…but the firies aren’t worth it?

[Troo believer]

We shouldn’t fly if there is no ARFF service next week. Another dream’t up cost cutting exercise by the previous government. If, god forbid, the worst happens then I know our Fire Fighters will be there pronto. I fully support twisting ASA on this. If they want to save some money then design better SIDS and STARS ffs. You could save millions per year which would benefit all operators.
I bet if ASA downsize the fire fighting workforce it won’t be passed onto the airlines for a incurring a reduced capability yet give some bean counter with no skin in the game a bonus.

[red_dirt]

We shouldn’t fly if there is no ARFF service next week. Another dream’t up cost cutting exercise by the previous government. If, god forbid, the worst happens then I know our Fire Fighters will be there pronto. I fully support twisting ASA on this. If they want to save some money then design better SIDS and STARS ffs. You could save millions per year which would benefit all operators.
I bet if ASA downsize the fire fighting workforce it won’t be passed onto the airlines for a incurring a reduced capability yet give some bean counter with no skin in the game a bonus.

They offered VR’s people and those that took it were largely close to the age anyway and also no mention of or thanks to the ivory castle for keeping them employed while many others lost their jobs.

the UFU are trying to exploit the whole “firefighter” trusted people card and they don’t have enough staff, well if they think that having the extra staff spread over the 27 stations now makes them the super human service they think they are they are gravely mistaking. Having that 1 extra bod on the crew will make no operational difference.

[dr dre]

fark me, the moment someone talks about pilot pay you’re all about it…but the firies aren’t worth it?

I have to say “hear hear”. Since this forum came into existence we’ve had thousands of posts bemoaning the cuts to pay and conditions for pilots and the apparent lack of pilots standing up for themselves to stop the cuts to pay and conditions.

Now when some of our aviation brethren (who put their lives on the line for us, as the poor souls in Dubai and Lima recently demonstrate) stand up to ensure safe staffing levels we cry foul because our Friday morning plans are slightly disrupted.

They’re only asking for an average 3.5% pay rise over the EBA, we’ll below inflation.


the UFU are trying to exploit the whole “firefighter” trusted people card

No, they are trusted full stop. More so than almost any other profession, even pilots.

and they don’t have enough staff, well if they think that having the extra staff spread over the 27 stations now makes them the super human service they think they are they are gravely mistaking. Having that 1 extra bod on the crew will make no operational difference.

First off they don’t have enough staff, Airservices has confirmed this in an internal review:

However, an Airservices Australia risk assurance review dated September 9 and circulated by the union shows national available staffing levels were well below the required staffing levels due to “increases in long-term leave, sick leave and mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic”.

Secondly who are you to tell firefighters they don’t need extra crew? How would you like it if they said “I don’t think you need 4 pilots for ULH, 3, or even 2 will suffice”.

[Hempy]

It's so you'll try extra hard not to collide with the 97' AMSL tree that penetrates the VSS 2kms away from the ARP.
Omfg this actually made me laugh out loud

[Lead Balloon]

Omfg this actually made me laugh out loudIt’s no laughing matter, Hempy. Otherwise, why would it be the subject of NOTAM? Get with the safety program! (Finger waving gif)

[PPRuNeUser0201]

It's so you'll try extra hard not to collide with the 97' AMSL tree that penetrates the VSS 2kms away from the ARP.

Classic comment of the year right there folks! Lol

[Icarus2001]

Fark me, the moment someone talks about pilot pay you’re all about it…but the firies aren’t worth it?

Can you show me where I suggested that the fireies are not worth it?
The standard of comprehension on here is atrocious.

[goodonyamate]

I can’t understand for the life of me why any of you would say anything negative about their PIA. Governments and corporations have bullied employees for too long, and there’s a visible change happening. We should be embracing it.

not paying the fees? So if you take PIA one day you think your employer should stop paying you?

If you want to see what it’s about, get in contact and go and spend a day with them. I have. The shifts, the training, the drills, and the risks. Dont forget they respond to Medicals as well. Just like pilots, they have skills and training they hope they don’t need, but are still required to demonstrate proficiency. This is not a job for some mug off the street.


Comprehension? this thread should be nothing but support. Unbelievable. Same for the cabin crew at Q that have voted for PIA. Yeah sure, their action might cost me some hours. Big deal. If they can get what they want it’s just another chink in the armour that has surrounded ‘bargaining’. Yep, we’re on the outside of that armour as far as places like airservices, Q and V are concerned.

[Ollie Onion]

Clearly it is an arse covering exercise. If you crash, everyone burns to death due to no RFF coverage and the Airport can say it is all your fault as they ‘informed you their was no RFF coverage’ your honour!

[goodonyamate]

Not the brightest bulb on the tree are you?

Not talking about the employees being docked - talking about NavCharges not being paid for RFF)ATC that is nor provided by Airservices. Hit them in the hip pocket to make them employ enough people to provide the service they are supposed to, in their monopoly environment.

Service Provider has employee PIA. Drops suggests service provider shouldn’t get paid.

pilot (service provider) takes PIA. Doesn’t get paid. Cries like a baby about employer and how unfair it is.

if it could be done and worked as you said, then sure. Otherwise….probably ‘not so bright’

[clark y]

From Neville's SMH article earlier-
CASA could not say whether airlines could safely or legally operate during the strike.“We are currently working with all relevant parties to understand the impacts of this announcement,” a CASA spokesman said.

So the regulator doesn't know the rules they wrote?

[goodonyamate]

I wish the ARFF all the best in their efforts to hold ASA to account on staffing levels. ATC have been trying to do the same thing since around 2006, but to little avail.

The RWNJ media and the Joyce sycho-fans will frame this through their own self interested greedy perverted lens. But anyone in Aviation who has been on the prickly end of the multiple outsourced subsidiary A scale through Z scale pineapple will know the truth of the matter


we are in furious agreement.

[Icarus2001]

From Neville's SMH article earlier-
CASA could not say whether airlines could safely or legally operate during the strike.“We are currently working with all relevant parties to understand the impacts of this announcement,” a CASA spokesman said.

So the regulator doesn't know the rules they wrote?

I did notice that. Sweet pickle CASA are in. Either it is legal or it is not. Either answer begs more questions.

[Lead Balloon]

You've gotta love the spin out of Airservices' Dominique Lamb:For Airservices Australia, those planes will be able to take off during that period of time and we will do everything that we can do to minimise disruption for all of our travellers.

We understand that they will be able to operate across the sector at that time and we know that they will still be able to take off.Of course the aircraft will be "able to" take off. And they'll be "able to" land. Whether there's no added legal risk for the operators in doing so is a related but very different question.

[Icarus2001]

We understand that they will be able to operate across the sector at that time and we know that they will still be able to take off.

Yes the laws of physics have not changed. Seriously are they saying no RFFS is needed for take offs?

Where is our state of the art media asking awkward questions?

​​​​​​​Bueller?

[tossbag]

So Airservices are saying that, no worries, you'll be right to take off if the guardians of the runways, taxyways and fat bastards having heart attacks in the terminal are stopping work. That means that Airservices couldn't give a **** if they're there or not? mmmm, guardians of the runways, taxyways etc......you might have to be scared and cowed like pilots and accept a pay freeze to keep your jobs.

[Lead Balloon]

More comedy gold from Airservices' Ms Lamb:There’s a whole raft of things that Air Services Australia will put in place to ensure that people can still operate and fly around our country in a safe manner.

[C441]

Many, many years ago I used to play indoor cricket with a suburban firie based close to Sydney airport. At the time he said it was not unusual to be put on 'standby' for dispatch to the airport if an aircraft had reported difficulties. He also added that part of their training at the time was aviation incident related although not terribly specific. I wonder if non-aviation fire services may be deployed or made more readily available in some locations.

[43Inches]

Many, many years ago I used to play indoor cricket with a suburban firie based close to Sydney airport. At the time he said it was not unusual to be put on 'standby' for dispatch to the airport if an aircraft had reported difficulties. He also added that part of their training at the time was aviation incident related although not terribly specific. I wonder if non-aviation fire services may be deployed or made more readily available in some locations.

I do recall that local firestations around airports that may have to deal with aircraft are given extra training in such. That's the local fire stations not airport based RFF which would specialise entirely in aviation based fire fighting. Country firestations away from major airports probably don't train at all for aviation style rescue, probably just arrive and dump retardant on the wreck until its out and save anyone in the area that's still moving. I had a few interactions with RFF from local stations that got themselves into some dangerous positions while assisting, had to tell them to move away from situations they were not aware of.

[keepemseperated]

Unless things have changed in the last couple of years, only those effected by the change need to be directly notified i.e. Cat 10 aircraft (B748 & A380). I can only assume that the ATC is either misinformed or providing some support to their firefighting brothers/sisters.

[10JQKA]

Firefighters PIA called off under a new 1 yr 4.9% Enterprise Agreement.

[SHVC]

So, it was about money and not staffing.

[dr dre]

So, it was about money and not staffing.

No mention of pay in this article (https://www.mygc.com.au/aviation-firefighters-strike-called-off/?fbclid=IwAR2wIWZS29B-n5XmUjUjQnYE7PfR_Ic3rgK1DLwq9qAPP3ZWzXWqk6ofwdc&fs=e&s=cl).

It looks as if Airservices have agreed to the Union’s main claim to increase staffing levels to minimum international standards.

[10JQKA]

From "The Guardian" yesterday......



At the time, the union said it was protesting safety concerns arising from low staffing levels, following months of negotiations over a new enterprise deal. The union had mentioned these safety concerns, and demands for minimum staffing level clauses.

However in an Airservices Australia statement released on Friday afternoon, only new pay details from the in-principle deal were mentioned. Workers will receive a 4.9% salary increase, the statement said.

Airservices Australia chief executive, Jason Harfield, said:

“Airservices is pleased to have reached this in-principle agreement with the UFUAV, which puts an end to proposed industrial action next week. This new agreement provides certainty for our ARFFs workforce, airlines and the travelling public. We commend all involved in reaching this new agreement.”

Guardian Australia contacted the United Firefighters Union Aviation branch for comment.

[le Pingouin]

Of course Airservices are saying that as they won't own up to anything they're responsible for causing.

[Lead Balloon]

It must be 'inspiring' working for an organisation whose executive treats its operational staff - e.g. air traffic controllers and fire fighters - with such contempt by painting operational staff as acting only in their self interest. I'm sure the executives are working for free, because their dedication and contribution to the interests of the safety of air navigation is all the reward they need.

[atcnews]

Reviewing the union update (https://ufuav.asn.au/ea-update-in-principle-agreement/) it appears a minimum staffing clause has been included.